Re: "Bug of the month", or how to get people fixing bugs

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > Also once you have this more fully fleshed out perhaps announcing this on some > place like DebianPlanet would be a good idea. We have plenty of users who > have time to fix a bug or two but not become full time devels. Or is this > meant as a De

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

Joey a écrit : >> | To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995, >> | Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed >> software >> | decoders. For commercially sold decoders – primarily hardware mp3 >> players – >> | the per-unit royalty ha

Re: debbugs: assign someone from a group of willing people to fix a bug

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > Package: debbugs It would be bugs.debian.org. You don't file a bug against smartlist or qmail if you want a new mailinglist either. Please reassign. > What to do? > > I would like to propose a setup similar to the one used to translate > package de

Re: Work-needing packages report for Aug 30, 2002

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 0 > Number of packages offered up for adoption this week: 0 > Total number of orphaned packages: 0 > Number of packages orphaned this week: 0 Maybe you could run the script on satie rather than auric

Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30 Severity: wishlist * Package name: mairix Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Richard Curnow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix * License : GPL Description : indexing and searching email mes

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

Kevin M. Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: wnpp > Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30 > Severity: wishlist > * Package name: mairix > Version : 0.4 > Upstream Author : Richard Curnow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix > * License

Re: Security notification script

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:31:34PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote: > I have written a python script that allows you to compares locally > installed packages with those on security.debian.org. Furthermore it > provides a description of the problem/DSA name if the package is > mentioned in the DSA RDF.

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix > > Sounds cool. Is it us-ascii only or does it support latin1/latin9? > And directly connected to this question: does it decode > quoted-printable before indexing? I don't see an

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

Hi, I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody does, so... As usual Heise got it right: (German). Essentially, the relevant change to the MP3 license was already made 1.5 years ago, but apparently nobody noticed unti

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

Hi, On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:42:48PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote: > I have been waiting all along for someone to post this, but nobody > does, so... > > As usual Heise got it right: > (German). I posted the other story (with Thomson offi

Bug#158874: ITP: backuppc -- A high-performance, enterprise-grade system for backing up PCs

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-30 Severity: wishlist * Package name: backuppc Version : 1.5.0 Upstream Author : Craig BarrattName <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/backuppc/ * License : GPL Description : A high-perf

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On 08/30/2002 06:42:48 AM Richard Atterer wrote: >> As usual Heise got it right: >> (German). Or, for you English speakers, http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/data/jk-28.08.02-008/

Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

Redhat seems to be going to use a common look for their desktops (GNOME as well as KDE) in their new beta featuring a new icon set. Check out the screenshots at http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=616&mode=&order=0 I like them and i think they are impressive... It's one of the things App

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter > for linux apps and desktops... I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really matters; RH and MDK have very nice default desktop the

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote: > > Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US. > > Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won't ever be. currently non-US is the only place where it can

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:44:03PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 18:34, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Also since this depends on mpg321 it'd have to be in non-US. > > > > Certainly not. mpg321 isn't in non-US now, and probably won

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

>> Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Apart from the question if KDE and GNOME2 should be made to look > similar (KDE developers were pretty angry at RedHats step), should we > try to make a "Debian" look default? (Provided that someone does > Debian Themes...) By all means, anyth

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:16, Robert Millan wrote: > > currently non-US is the only place where it can be without breaking law. > > This is incorrect: mp3 patents exist in non-US places too, like Germany. we definitely need an mp3 decoder

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Friday 30 August 2030 06:50, Jérôme Marant wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > > I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter > > for linux apps and desktops... > > I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme re

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> that reddish tone? Please no; it's a very nice color, but I don't > think people want to look at it for more than 5 seconds at a time. why? In my windowmaker I'm using default debian-theme, and I like it very much :-) -- Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling M

Re: Bug#158851: ITP: mairix -- indexing and searching email messages stored in Maildir or MH folders.

Kevin Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> * URL : http://www.rc0.org.uk/mairix >> Sounds cool. Is it us-ascii only or does it support latin1/latin9? >> And directly connected to this question: does it decode >> qu

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

Jérôme Marant wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: I don't have a real opinion, but i do thing that looks begin to matter for linux apps and desktops... I agree with you. I think that the default Distribution theme really matters; RH and MDK have very nice de

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> No, seriously, it would be less confusing for novice users. More > experienced ones already know how to change themes and perhaps make > everything look consistent, but it's a considerable ammount of work. Especially since KDE asks at the beginning which style they want to use anyway... If w

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> Provided we *ONLY* muck with things like colors, icons, and root images this > should be fine. Actually changing code like RH did to remove the About box > would not be good. I never look at about boxes anyway, so why remove them? ;) This has nothing to do with common look, and all Interface

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

>> Mateusz Papiernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > why? In my windowmaker I'm using default debian-theme, and I like it > very much :-) But AFAIR in the Window Maker theme it's used for the active (?) title bar. That's a very good use because it's the one element in the desktop which your a

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Friday 30 August 2002 09:03, Yenar Calentaure wrote: > > Please, please, please, do not change the default without asking user > first. Debian users tend to know what they want. > And the clueful user almost never uses the default anyways. But even if they do want to we just provide an option

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> But AFAIR in the Window Maker theme it's used for the active (?) title > bar. That's a very good use because it's the one element in the > desktop which your are using, but you don't actually look at the title > bar, you look at the window's content. yes - you're right. Never mind :-) I abso

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:05, Erich Schubert wrote: > > Provided we *ONLY* muck with things like colors, icons, and root images > > this should be fine. Actually changing code like RH did to remove the > > About box would not be good. > > I never look at about boxes anyway, so why remove them? ;

existing debian themes

On themes.freshmeat.net there are a few Debian themes, some nice backgrounds etc. For example this one could go for a futuristic aqua-like look (GnuBubbles for GTK2 for example?) http://themes.freshmeat.net/screenshots/28071/ And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen http://s

graphical installer?

Hello! Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know, it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for beginners - for example automatically search and install modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P -- Mati ([EMAIL

Re: existing debian themes

> And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen > http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/ > which (when one replace the ridiculous apples ;) could be a nice default > for gdm2 (when it gets packaged, i can't await it ;) It's nice, but I think that this white color is too absorbing, maybe som

Re: graphical installer?

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > Hello! > > Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know, > it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for > beginners - for example automatically search and install > modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration > for pri

Re: graphical installer?

> Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got any other plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer for ever? -- Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sounds like a Windows p

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On 08/30/2002 08:43:32 AM Erich Schubert wrote: >> It's one of the things Apple proved: desktop and apps that look smooth >> do make their users feel comfortable with them ;) No, they proved if you do not give users a choice of "nothing" or "Apple's theme" the users prefer to use their theme rath

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:02:46PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > (But i HATE that druid of KDE... why do i have to select the language > and keyboard again? my admin already configured these...) Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have software in their local langua

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like W95, > I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed version. so maybe debconf should ask (when installing windowmanager) which theme do you like - original from wm, or this debian theme ? > > -- Mati (

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:26:03PM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: > Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have s/want's/wants > software in their local language and use local keyboard layout, then we > indeed want's to have our software in english and us keyboard layout

apt-get does not do what dselect says

Hello! Problem: apt is removing some packages when started from dselect within prior notice inside dselect. (this might be related to bug#151662, #157210, but I am not sure it is the same currently -- maybe discussion makes it more clear to me, I can tighten up my report and send it to the BTS)

Re: graphical installer?

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ > > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have You got > any other plans ? Or maybe you want to use text installer

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Vince Mulhollon wrote: > > The problem is, I experiment with and chose window managers by going to the > website and look at the pretty screenshots. > If I like the screenshot, then it's a quick apt-get install somethingwm. I > expect to get what I saw on upstream's

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On 08/30/2002 10:34:18 AM Mateusz Papiernik wrote: >> > If I like the look of ratpoison, and someone themes it to look like W95, >> > I'm not going to like it when I'm "surprised" with Debian's themed version. >> so maybe debconf should ask (when installing windowmanager) which theme >> do you lik

Re: existing debian themes

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 16:16, Erich Schubert wrote: > And sunshineinabag.co.uk already has a Debian GDM2 login screen > http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/ > which (when one replace the ridiculous apples ;) could be a nice default > for gdm2 (when it gets packaged, i can't await it ;) > > The "Debian colo

Re: existing debian themes

> However, a quick look at the file reveals that the debian logo is > actually a large jpeg. If someone could find a vector source of the > Debian logo (I'm sure there is one somewhere) which could be converted it's on debian.org site - I'll find it within seconds :-) -- Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: existing debian themes

> However, a quick look at the file reveals that the debian logo is > actually a large jpeg. If someone could find a vector source of the look at it: http://gnuart.onshore.com/svg/openVertColor.svg p.s. http://www.debian.org/logos (EPS) -- Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sounds like a Windows problem,

Re: graphical installer?

On approximately Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:22:50PM +0200, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > Hello! > > Is there any plans for the graphical installer? I know, > it isn't needed, but I think it would be nice step for > beginners - for example automatically search and install > modules for ethernet/whatever

Re: graphical installer?

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:22:50 +0200 Mateusz Papiernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > beginners - for example automatically search and install > modules for ethernet/whatever - or easy configuration > for printer :-P Of course I'm not a beginner :-P Being able to automatically search and install mod

Re: graphical installer?

Le ven 30/08/2002 à 17:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry a écrit : > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ > > > > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why > > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid images? Have Yo

Re: graphical installer?

On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le ven 30/08/2002 à 17:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry a écrit : > > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > > > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ > > > > > > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much -

Re: graphical installer?

> Being able to automatically search and install modules or having easy > configuration for printers, has nothing to do with using a graphical > interface or not. sorry - I meant not that. I meant about extending install-system capability with adding graphical interface to it :-) -- Mati ([EMAI

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

> Because some admins, unlike the rest of us, thinks users want's to have > software in their local language and use local keyboard layout, then we > indeed want's to have our software in english and us keyboard layout > with local as an switchable option, right? Which means *everbody* needs to an

Re: graphical installer?

* Mateusz Papiernik | Is there any plans for the graphical installer? yes. look at the debian-installer module in debian-boot cvs. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :

dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

Greetings, Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug. Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory with a symlink during upgrade. This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I made an unstable chroot from a potato tarball on an ARM system a couple of months ago.

Re: dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Greetings, > > Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug. > > Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory > with a symlink during upgrade. This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I > made an unstable chroot from a

Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]

Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Russell> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35, Geert Stappers wrote: > >> When the cause of the buildproblem is in the package, fix the > >> problem there. The package maintainer hasn'

Re: Is there a limitation on swap parition size linux can use?

Walter Tautz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I heard that 2Gb is the limit. If so I would have > to create distinct swap partitions if I wanted to > have more than 2Gb swap? Just wondering... The older blends of kernels only allowed swap partitions up to 128MB. The newer kernels allow 2GB per swap

Re: RFD: Architecture field being retarded? [was: How to specify architectures *not* to be built?]

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote: > > > This proposal would also allow, say bochs, to provide i386 too (although > > I think more work might be needed here). > > No, it wouldn't. > > Say you install bochs on alpha. If bochs provides i386, then this

Re: Large file support?

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:42:04PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > This does not solve the issue, LFS requires 2.4 or a patched 2.2 > > Kernel. > > http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html > > But with a standard 2.2 kernel it should still work

Re: dpkg bug #156463: second opinions?

Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Greetings, > > Just writing to request a "second opinion" on this bug. > > Current dpkg behavior does not allow a package to replace a directory > with a symlink during upgrade. This broke a libc6-dev upgrade when I > made an unstable chroot from a

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:40:11AM +0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Right now, every TLS-enabled package tries to screw it up in new and > never-before-tried ways. One commonly missing feature is that the certificate should contain a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName containin

Re: Large file support?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > Its not. glibc takes care of it since like forever. > > Otherwise ls, dd, cat, tar, all would be broken. Thanks. That was what I would have expected, but anyway, better be sure what you are doing. Greetings Torst

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:23AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > If fraunhofer say that you are allowed to distribute mp3 players for > free (but not for cost), then they must be put in non-free. And since > they have patents all around the world, they can't be put in non-us. It's my interpretation of

Re: Please compile treetool on alpha, arm, hppa, ia64, powerpc and s390

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:15:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:59:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > unfortunately treetool is non-free because there is neigther a > > > license nor any upstream author available. >

Re: graphical installer?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:37:50AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:29, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: > > > Have a look at PGI: http://hackers.progeny.com/pgi/ > > > > It's very nice! I like GTK wizard look very much - so why > > it isn't integrated with unofficial Sid ima

Re: Should we customize apps for a common "debian-look"?

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:55, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > I also agree. There was a moment of "bah we are not a company" but in the > end, I think a little help in giving our users a good looking default would > go a long way. Of course not being a KDE or GNOME user I would also like to > see

Re: Work-needing packages report for Aug 30, 2002

I don't know if this is the place to send this mail, so sorry if i'm wrong. I like contribute in some of the following projects : emelfm (#158150), orphaned 119 days ago Description: file manager for X/gtk gadfly (#113080), orphaned 342 days ago Description: SQL database and parser ge

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote: > On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications > that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname > checking against the certificate - leaving you open to > man-in-the-middle attacks. (speaking

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, it was written: > Hello world, > > In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will cease > to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated in their > place (actually, if you look carefully, they're already being generated). > Sources.bz2 files

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:34:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > This will break apt, as it doesn't look for compressed versions when using > file uris. Then apt, or debian-cd, needs to be fixed. *shrug* There's no need to Cc me, even when I bounce things and possibly lose my M-F-T header. Cheers,

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:36:47PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > In other words, if you write some free software, it's not your fault if > some company decides 15 minutes or 15 years later that they had a patent > on an algorithm you used, and sent packs of lawyers out to eradicate > your softwa

Re: RFC: Handling of certificates in Debian

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:57:12PM -0700, Neil Spring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote: > > On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications > > that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname > > checking against the certi

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 05:34:48PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > > This will break apt, as it doesn't look for compressed versions when using > > file uris. > > Then apt, or debian-cd, needs to be fixed. *shrug* Huh. debian-cd can just uncompress them, b

Re: "Bug of the month", or how to get people fixing bugs

Andrew Suffield wrote: [Obey M-F-T or die] Here's the basic idea: turn bug-fixing into a game (a counterbalance to the huge quantities of time which moon-buggy and frozen-bubble have taken away from Debian development). People register to play, and each month, all the players are given three random

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:48 -0500 (CDT) Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, it was written: > > > Hello world, > > > > In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will > > cease to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated > > in their

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hello world, > > In a couple of days uncompressed Packages files for unstable will cease > to be generated, and bzip2'ed Packages files will be generated in their That will also break rsyncing them, which saves a lot. Packages, Sources and Contents files only have min

why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at a Yellow Dog Linux machine and noticed, however, that they had a texinfo 4.2

Re: why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jack Howarth wrote: >I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to > package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian > ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy > perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at > a Yellow Dog Linux machine

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote: > If its compressed its all or nothing. nope. you can append compressed data to the end of a gzip file, and gunzip will cope.

Re: why is /usr/sbin/install-info a perl script!!!

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:09:04PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >I am trying to get the glibc debian cvs for 2.2.92 to > package (it builds and passes make check fine on debian > ppc sid with the new gcc 3.2.1pre). However the buggy > perl 5.80 in sid has broken install-info. I looked at > a Yel

Re: Packages.bz2, Sources.bz2, Contents-*.bz2, oh my

Heh. What part of "There's no need to Cc me" is so unclear, I wonder? On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:01:29PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > Using http range transfers its possible to only download a portion of the > packages file if its uncompressed, this method could have been used along > with a pack

Re: Bug#158683: ITP: oggasm -- MP3 to Ogg converter

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:36, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think it would be fair to tar mpg321 with the brush of "non-free" when ^un? > that clearly wasn't your intent when you wrote it. Having a giant > corporation smash your First Amendmendment[1] right to express yourself